Philosophers for Social 30-2

PhilosophersOld Dudes Who Said Some Stuff

At the Core of itIn a sentence, describe what traits you think all people have at our core. If we were from 1700 we would say “Man is...” but it’s 2016 so start with “Humans are...”

This should be something that we would all be if we were given the choice (and had no societal pressures.)

Thomas “Don’t Call Me Horrible” Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

”The life of man “is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

an example of a philosopher who preferred “the evils of absolute power” to “the evils of life in a society that

did not contain such an authority.”

a psychological theory about the nature of people. According to this view, a person is by nature “selfish”

and “egoistic.”

In order to have “a peaceful society,” it is therefore required that the ruler have absolute control over it.

Absolute RulerBenefits? Problems?

THE SOVEREIGNWhatever abuses arise from his possession of such power, the society will nevertheless remain a peaceful one-and hence the abuses of such power are to be preferred to living in “chaos.”

Laws are effective, if, and only if, they are enforced. And the enforcing agency can do so only if it is granted absolute power.

“natural rights” / “liberties”However, although the power of the ruler of a state is “absolute,” Hobbes proposed the subject have certain “liberties.” These “liberties” he defines as “those things the subject may justly refuse to do even though commanded by the sovereign.”

Since sovereignty is created by a “covenant,” or “contract,” the subject retains all those “natural rights” that can not be transferred by covenant. For instance, people always have liberty to defend their lives against the sovereign.

Where do your rights come from?

Locke ness MonsterJohn Locke (1632 - 1704)

“humans are a social animal”

“state of nature” is one where humans are not wholly selfish or cooperative and own their own private property.

the “law of nature” is that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions”

So... if this is the natural world, the question becomes....

This guy

Not this guy

Why live in a society?

Keep it on Locke

Humans will assault and maim each other

Life is characterized by one person or group seeking absolute power over others. (creating a “state of war”)

When this occurs we are required to oppose them.

Locke believes that Monarchy is an example of this.

Locked into it

Locke’s Social Contract

societally agreed upon law, not force, is the basis of govt

A govt without law will be tyrannical (this is the danger with the Hobbes view of a single ruler)

We give up our right to ourselves exact retribution for crimes in return for impartial justice backed by overwhelming force. We retain the right to life and liberty, and gain the right to just, impartial protection of our property

Locke emphasizes that the government is appointed by the people and is therefore “responsible to them”. This means the people hold the authority in society.

What right do you have?

What right do you think is the most important to freedom from tyranny?

Padlocke your doorLocke believed the main right was that to own private property

According to him, no government can justly take away a person’s private property.

This is because private property is, to a great extent, the fruit of a person’s own labour.

In a significant sense, part of the person is invested in his property (and to take it from him is tantamount to an assault upon his physical person.)

Over my dead bodyHobbes and Rousseau (Jean) disagreed with Private Property rights.

“Property is a creation of society”

Before society “there is no thine or mine”

A man owns what he can hold by force; he has no “right” to anything

Insert Locke pun here

Locke argues that all men are equal in the sense that they have rights that are “anterior” to those given them by society, and since they are not given to them by society, they cannot be taken away by society either.

John Stuart Mill

(1806 - 1873)

Some dangers to freedom are insidious because they come from within democracy itself

What do you think these dangers are? How do they happen?

Run of the Mill

Certain limits need to be imposed on the ruler over the citizens.

Tyranny of the majority stifles the development of individualistic behaviour.

Public Opinion problem?

Guilty Until Tweet Deleted

Public opinion is notoriously susceptible to error; it may reflect ancient prejudices, & it may be dominated by superstition and tradition.

Consequently, Mill argues, public opinion ought not to be a law that individuals must conform to, even an “unwritten” law.

It should be possible in a properly run democratic society for the individual both to have the protection of the law against the prevailing sentiments of society, as well as to act freely in the face of majority opinion where no laws, but only customs exist.

Let’s Mill AboutFirst, it is wrong to suppress an opinion that the majority does not approve of because the suppressed opinion may be true.'

Second, a false opinion is frequently corrected through open discussion.'

Third, to deny others the right to express their opinions is to assume one’s own infallibility.

have you ever experienced any of these situations? Or can you think of examples of a time when this occurred in history?